Sandhu v Minister for Immigration

In *Sandhu v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr Sandhu, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a Protection visa. The dispute centred on whether Mr Sandhu had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason prescribed by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the Minister's delegate had erred in their assessment of Mr Sandhu's claims of persecution. Specifically, the court had to determine if the delegate had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by Mr Sandhu regarding the alleged threats he faced in his home country, and whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the material before them.

Judge Driver found that the delegate's assessment of Mr Sandhu's claims was flawed. The delegate had failed to properly engage with significant portions of the evidence, including expert reports and corroborating documentation, which cast doubt on the delegate's adverse credibility findings. The court reiterated the principle that when assessing a claim for protection, delegates must give proper consideration to all relevant evidence, and adverse credibility findings must be based on a holistic and reasoned assessment of the applicant's testimony in light of the available evidence. The delegate's failure to do so meant that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The court ordered that the Minister's decision be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.